You can dispute many things, but one thing you cannot dispute is that Ronald Reagan was the key instrument in the disolution of the Soviet Communist State
arlos wrote:Actually, you can dispute that quite resoundingly. Hell, I have quoted here before statements from high party officials in the USSR stating that Reagan hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by oh, maybe an hour or so, tops.
I’m sorry but I don’t really consider communist political leaders or former communist political leaders as a bulletproof source. Just because they said it does not make it true. I will however entertain this for a moment. There are in fact a plethora of reasons for them not to attribute the fall of the USSR to actions taken by President Reagan. Patriotism - It's hard to admit that someone who you looked upon as an enemy for so long did in fact contribute to your demise. They were also looking at the situation after the fact and trying to reform government. If they were to admit that Regan and US foreign policy did have a huge impact on the fall of communism, or that any other source outside of the government its self was responsible to a measurable degree, this would lend credibility to the idea that the previous form of government wasn't innately doomed to fail, but that it failed because the leadership was out foxed by the wily Americans. People, even those that are under a repressive state are reluctant to change, especially when the change brings so much turmoil, and all they have ever known was the oppressive but stable government. Anything that lent credibility to the idea that the former government didn't fail because of poor design, but due to errors made by the leadership would have hampered efforts to make change, and also would have created a back lash toward those that were in power.
arlos wrote:The Soviet Union was done in because their economy couldn't keep up with the rest of the world. They were spending a higher and higher percentage of their GDP on military spending, and ultimately it was unsupportable. Gorbachev was merely the first Soviet Premier to admit the fact, and look for a way out of it.
Honestly as an argument that Reagan’s actions and US foreign policy at the time did not affect the USSR in a detrimental way, and that the government failed all on it's own is very short sighted. Why is it that you think the USSR was spending so much on their military? Remember the "arms race"? For a specific example look at the "star wars" program. For those of you to young to remember, the idea behind it was to use satellite weapons systems to destroy incoming nuclear missiles before they could reach their targets. There was a lot of question as to the validity of the technology here at home. Huge sums of money were being dumped into the star wars project, with very little return in the way of proven success. The Democrats at the time by enlarge were opposed to the program, it was considered by many a joke, and a waste of money. Reagan was dubbed nothing short of a buffoon for supporting it. Whether the technology it's self was viable or even plausible didn't matter though. What did matter is that the Soviets saw it as possible, and as a threat. This was a primary contention for Gorbachev, and Regan would not back down, he would not dismantle the star wars program despite the fact that Gorbachev was very adamant that he must do so for nearly every concession the Soviets made. It was in short a very big bargaining chip and one Regan was never forced to use. So why was it that the Soviets feared this particular program so much? If it at some point did become successful, if we did get it up and running, the number of warheads that the USSR would have to have to "keep up" with our stock pile would have had to have been multiplied drastically compared to our own. Either that or they would be put into a situation where if a nuclear exchange did occur it would be possible that they would be dealing with nearly every one of our warheads hitting targets, with few if any of theirs hitting their targets. It didn't matter if the program its self actually worked, it mattered that the Soviets thought that it would work. US foreign policy, armament build up, and Regan's negotiations in weapons reductions summits played a huge roll in forcing the USSR to keep increasing their weapons spending. That the Soviet government failed due to this is true, the short sightedness comes in if you don't realize or refuse to admit that the US played a major roll in bringing this to pass.
arlos wrote:Reagan was a complete asshat, and was suffering from severe alzheimers by his 2nd term anyway. Nancy and the cabinet ran the country, they just trotted him out for occasional speeches which were always well-rehearsed. He's DAMN lucky he didn't end up getting impeached for Iran/Contra, and both of his terms were filled with stories about people in his administration getting nailed for shady dealings or other malfeasance. He was known at the time as the teflon president, because no matter how much shit people in his administration got caught doing, none of it stuck to him.
Ever notice that anyone liberals don't agree with is an "asshat", "idiot", "moron" or mentally deficient in some way? I loved the way Regan carried himself, it drove his opponents crazy, did you ever consider that perhaps the reason "none of it stuck to him" was that he was innocent of the majority if not all of the charges brought against him? Did you ever consider that maybe the reason he wasn't impeached was because impeachment wasn't warranted? I’m guessing you haven’t, and I can understand why you have so much resentment toward a conservative who you feel should have been impeached and wasn’t when in recent years have seen a Democrat that should have been impeached actually impeached.
arlos wrote:So, no, I do not in any way regard Reagan as a "great president" in the least. I see him as also being responsible for the changing of the Republican party from what it was before to what it is now, especially with the growing hand-holding with the religious right, which first started tis rise to prominence under his administration.
Well I guess you and I would disagree there, of course we probably disagree on how "great" the Clinton presidency was also. But I'll tell you this Arlos I absolutely wish that one party or the other would produce a candidate of Reagan's caliber again. Like OuchyFish I'll have to admit that I was young at the time, to young to fully understand everything in politics. What I do remember is what he inspired, he was the only President in my life time that I could look at and say that's my President, that’s the guy I want to stand behind, not because I think he's the better of two evils, but because I think he'll actually do great things for our great nation. Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican would matter little to me if I had someone I wanted to vote FOR instead of voting to vote against someone.
Cliff notes for Zanchief :P
Reagan and US foreign policy did have a profound effect toward the fall of the Soviet government.
The arms race, and the way it was played out through summit negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev, and US foreign policy was a catalyst to the ever increasing spending by the Soviet government in its military which directly resulted in the failure of that government.
Reagan WAS a great president. I wish we more presidents like him.
